User talk:Gearslover01
Welcome Hi, welcome to BioShock Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the File:Rosie2.jpg page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- BlueIsSupreme (Talk) 02:37, 28 October 2009 Hey Nobody's getting judged, haha. I've you have some questions, feel free to ask them. Btw, it's more convenient to sign off with four tildes. Freezing Mike 10:36, November 8, 2009 (UTC) Tenenbaum Ok, what do you think? I was able to get rid of the cross-hair, but the color is as good as it's going to be unless another photo is taken... :) EDlTʘR •taIk• 01:16, March 5, 2010 (UTC) About Big Sister Teleportation Hmm, I've known about this, but interesting to confirm that one way it is used is when the game can't figure out a way of getting her to follow you. I didn't really like that store, because enemies seemed to start spawning in the other rooms away from me, or actually jumping down the hole. Was annoying, there. ~''Ṃᶒɠą§ɔîéɳčę' [[User talk:MegaScience|{ '''talk }]]'' 22:00, March 5, 2010 (UTC) About where I got the information on Brigid Tenenbaum page Well, I decompiled the audio archives and found them. Here they are: ~''Ṃᶒɠą§ɔîéɳčę' [[User talk:MegaScience|{ '''talk }]]'' 10:01, March 6, 2010 (UTC) Gil's end Hey, I'm not sure you noticed, but someone left a comment on the talk page explaining why Gil may have survived the explosions: I don't think we can say with certainty that he died. Let me know what you think. ~'Gardimuer ' [[User talk:Gardimuer|{ ʈalk }]] 05:50, March 10, 2010 (UTC) About your Blog Post As I mentioned to Stigma on MSN: :The most I said to him is that he starts going "Black people are my friends," which you only hear from soon-to-be-impeached politicians. I was trying to help him by saying not to say it like that >.> You also can not simply say "Yes" or "No" to a statement like that, you need context to explain your point/side. But, whatever. ~''Ṃᶒɠą§ɔîéɳčę' [[User talk:MegaScience|{ '''talk }]]'' 21:31, April 8, 2010 (UTC) :I have looked at your blog and all the replies to it, and I don't see any hostility directed at you (well, except from Willbachbakal, but he just has a low tolerance for foolishness). I suggest you take a few steps back from this issue, take a deep breath, and try looking at it from a different perspective. MegaScience is not "calling you all this stuff". All he has done is express an alternative view. Many of the comments you hid are actually people saying they don't think you are racist, so I am not sure why you hid them at all. To an outside, impartial observer it just looks like you hid comments from anyone who disagreed with you. #MegaScience is not trolling you. #MegaScience was the one who put a "Delete" template on his own blog post, so he either did it out of irony or because he is signaling courteously that he wants to end the controversy. #The last person to comment on either of those blogs was you. You are keeping the problem alive by continuing to talk about it. :I will not ban anyone or delete anything over this issue, because it is unnecessary. The easiest way for you to end this problem is to stop talking about it. Stop commenting on MegaScience's blog post. "Out of sight, out of mind" is a good principle to apply in this situation. Just stop bringing the situation up and everyone will forget about it. :Try reading this article on Wikipedia. It might help you to see the problem differently: Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. :This one might also be useful: Wikipedia:No angry mastodons#Defuse personal attacks. ~'Gardimuer' [[User talk:Gardimuer|{ ʈalk }]] 21:15, April 11, 2010 (UTC) ::Also, I'm not an admin, I just help around. I've actually strongly gone against even getting minor special editing rights, never mind letting my incompetent self become admin. Gardimuer knows about that (how I oppose it). ~''Ṃᶒɠą§ɔîéɳčę' [[User talk:MegaScience|{ '''talk }]]'' 01:56, April 12, 2010 (UTC) Re: Help Got your message. I'll try to cool things down as best as I can. --Willbachbakal 08:17, April 12, 2010 (UTC) Re: your post No need to be sorry. You were just saying your opinion. As for the conflict, just ignore him. It will make him look like he crying over nothing, and you will look like the bigger man. Dont worry about anybodys opinions, i'll try too get them to stop. (Joshranson 22:52, April 12, 2010 (UTC)) hey Are you and Megascience are all right now? Joshranson 23:19, April 14, 2010 (UTC) Admin? I never knew that you're a Admin on the Gears wiki :P ®ЁĠÍ§Ť3ŔẼĎ ₵ΘИ†Ŗ|฿ŪŢÖṜ 01:39, April 15, 2010 (UTC) Videos Sounds like a good idea. I have no problem adding those videos to their appropriate pages. It actually sounds... quite interesting. [[User:BlueIsSupreme|'BlueIsSupreme']] 18:08, August 5, 2010 (UTC) If the clips are from YouTube or similar, you can simply click the "Add Video" button while editing a page and insert the URL of the video. Or you can set up a video gallery like the Little Sister page has. You can edit the page, copy-paste the gallery parameters in a page, and copy-paste the URL's of the videos. [[User:BlueIsSupreme|'BlueIsSupreme']] 20:31, August 5, 2010 (UTC) Problem with the Little Sister page? [[User:BlueIsSupreme|'BlueIsSupreme']] 17:31, August 6, 2010 (UTC) It looked as if there was an edit war going on. Maybe I was wrong. [[User:BlueIsSupreme|'BlueIsSupreme']] 20:42, August 6, 2010 (UTC) Your blog I recently sent a message to MegaScience asking his opinion on your supposibly rascist blog. I think that your made an interesting question regarding BioShock 2; not a rascist one... However, I do not know what you have written in you blog, I would like to see it. Electro Bolt 00:32, August 13, 2010 (UTC) Your Edits Thanks for the effort you have been putting in. [[User:BlueIsSupreme|'BlueIsSupreme']] 20:02, August 14, 2010 (UTC) The BioShock 2" level pages need some work. I am glad to see you helping with those. [[User:BlueIsSupreme|'BlueIsSupreme']] 01:22, August 24, 2010 (UTC) Re: "Your edits are the worst." I'm sorry if I offended you, but how did I mess up your edits? You're acting like I erased them. All I did was move the page from "Elizabeth Comstock" to "Elizabeth." In fact, I like your edits. So, no; I didn't undo the effort you put into it. The Mrs. DeWitt edit? Its fine; I won't change it back. You have my word. My edits are the worst? Ok… that's your opinion; you're entitled to it. Finally, I've been on this wiki for eleven days (Two weeks). I've been a wikia member since 2011. Also, in these eleven days, I've had 129 edits. In your three years and nearly six months you've had 401 edits. You need to prove how you're comment about being on the wikia for years, while I've been on it for two weeks, is relevant, with this information. Again, if I offended you, I apologize. Smashb96' (talk) 23:54, April 6, 2013 (UTC) Booker DeWitt Picture Okay! Sounds great! Wonder who keeps changing it then.... hmmmm... oh well, thanks though! :) LordProtectorCorvoAttano1 (talk) 00:48, April 7, 2013 (UTC) I assure you, I didn't do anything to the picture in the infobox for Booker DeWitt. I only found out it had been changed, just now. Smashb96' (talk) 00:20, April 7, 2013 (UTC) Hey pal! Hope you don't mind me asking you this, but don't you think it's a better idea to make the main picture of Booker the one from the in-game and not the front cover? I mean, don't get me wrong, i understand that the front cover picture can be iconic, but it is'nt the most accurate. ''I think we should probably use the in-game picture because it technically is the Booker designed for the game (making it canon). If you have a better reason for it not to be the in-game picture though, just let me know! But personally, I do feel the in-game picture will work best. :) LordProtectorCorvoAttano1 (talk) 00:47, April 7, 2013 (UTC) Annabelle is JUST FINE, we don't need "Anna" I just wanted to ask you about this really quick. To my knowledge, Anna is never actually referred to as Annabelle in the game, and even Booker only calls her Anna. While I don't necessarily object to Annabelle being on the page, I feel like removing "Anna" negates the information we have about her. Molotov.cockroach (talk) 01:59, April 7, 2013 (UTC) dewitt native america I consider it very important. In a voxophone titles "true color of my skin" comstock said he was teased his entire life for supposvely being native american. And he said when the sergant said that his family tree sheltered teepees, he said this had followed him his entire life. This whole event lead up to him being eventually comstock. I think it's very important and want it to stay. Crunkus (talk) 02:02, August 25, 2013 (UTC) :Here's the deal. We leave the old image of him in the museum up, and I won't add anything to his history? Do we have and agreement on this? Crunkus (talk) 16:25, August 31, 2013 (UTC) ::I said I would compromise and go half way. I keep the history page the way you want and we keep the old main bio page image up that you yourself orignally uploaded. I say that's a fair deal. After this, we go both our own ways. I say this is fair, no? :Then I guess we have "no deal" Crunkus (talk) 17:08, August 31, 2013 (UTC) Booker DeWitt and Crunkus I've spoken to Crunkus and asked him to back down from this argument. I hope you'll do the same too. The new portrait picture is high-quality enough to be up there, so I think it should stay. However, it'd be better if you and Crunkus could avoid clashing with each other at least for the following few days, since nothing good can come out of it. This also means you two stopping this edit war on the Booker DeWitt page. --Willbachbakal (talk) 18:39, August 31, 2013 (UTC) RE: I need your help I'm sorry to say it, but I prefer the version with the backgroung. I really don't like charinfobox images with no background (for example, I personally don't like the one on the Elizabeth page) so I'd rather leave it be. Unownshipper (talk) 22:14, August 31, 2013 (UTC) hi Hello. Good to see you again. kthxbye. 'Registered contributor﻿﻿™''' 04:22, September 23, 2013 (UTC) HUD What does hud mean? How can it be evaded? ZanyDragon (talk) 00:58, December 26, 2013 (UTC) You got one picture on the Emporia page twice! ZanyDragon (talk) 00:59, December 26, 2013 (UTC) I uploaded it without the HUD. You'd have to click on the picture once to bring it up, then again to view it, and once more to view it full size. Would you believe me then? ZanyDragon (talk) 01:28, December 26, 2013 (UTC) Recent DeWittt Edits I made a minor change to your revised edits but kept the linear story you implemented as we agree that the Spiler Warning is suffiecient. A small side note, you are right that contributors should maintain a tone of encyclopedia writing over storytelling, but there's noting wrong wth adding a bit of creative flair to an articles' wording. Please try to maintain a civil tone. We are not trying to disuade new contributors from editing and your comment "You're new here." can come off as condescending. Unownshipper (talk) 06:18, February 24, 2014 (UTC) :I strongly disagree that we need need so many close up of booker dewitts face. That pervious brief case shot has been there since october 2012 when the beast of america trailer was shown. We already have so many other close up of bookers face on the booker dewitt page. I also lik the previous posting better (as union has already stated). Why does gears have to have such a monopoly on the way booker dewitt looks on the page (he already posted two faceshots of booker within the booker article page, have no problem with this as they been there awhile and would not edit them out, just dont think one person should have so much say on the whole booker article page)? He already posted two other pictures of booker dewitt on the main page. Let someone else have a viewpoint and keep the briefcase shot please. It has a cool detective "bring us the girl and wipe away the debt" vibe. It's been on the booker page for so long at this point I think it shoud stay (not to mention it sums up the very beginning part of the game really well.) Thanks. Evandalton089 (talk) 07:27, February 24, 2014 (UTC) Tone I think the Comstock edits issue has been settled for the time being. I know it can be difficult to deal with a series of edits you disagree with, but please remember to be cordial with new editors. We're trying to be encouraging, not threatening. Unownshipper (talk) 02:30, March 10, 2014 (UTC) Comstock/Columbia timeline Just wondering, in your opinion why does Comstock still exist after the ending of Infinite? I'm talking about a Columbia timeline Comstock. Liz travels back to Columbia where there is still a booker, comstock, liz, fink/etc. WOuld like to knmow your opinion on this. Thank you. CyberBob2K (talk) 13:33, March 28, 2014 (UTC) Near the beginning of Episode 2 she mentioned something about how the comstock that was killed at the end of episode 1 was the "final" Comstock. I figured she went around killing each and every Comstock that escaped the loop (from infinites ending) and the one in Ep1 was the last. Only to be proven wrong when she goes back to Columbia. CyberBob2K (talk) 13:43, March 28, 2014 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I guess I have mixed reactions towards the Burial at Sea DLC's. After the end if Infinite I thought the Booker we play as made the ultimate sacrifice at the end so that Comstock would never of been born. And all the horrific stuff we see happen in Infinite would never happen because of Booker's sacrifice. And that's why we see all the Elizabeths disappear at the end. Then were left with a Gambler and drunk booker dewitt to take care of Anna. I liked how it kinda left some mystery to that at the end of Infinite. Not to show no symapthy towards the little sisters. But since Liz spends so little time with Sally in the DLC's, I never formed a connect with Sally like I did liz from Infinite. The end of Infinite left a far more emotional impact on me and think is some ways the DLC kinda tainted it. CyberBob2K (talk) 14:09, March 28, 2014 (UTC) Of course, my apologies. I didn't think the photos looked super bad, so I threw them on to test the waters. Good to know, thanks. New Booker profile Too me it's like that new picture was altered and he looks less native american. His face looks less native american. And I think that stinks, espeically since Booker does have native american heritage. Brocks87 (talk) 19:21, April 8, 2014 (UTC) I like the previous picture better. Since you choose the profile pictures for Comstock, and the Leutce twins and already uploaded numerous other booker pictures on the bio page, why can't I have a say? are you a senior mod? Brocks87 (talk) 21:26, April 8, 2014 (UTC) If you uploaded it, can you please change it back to the previous? I liked it better. I think it's good to have a little diversity of opinion then have 5-6 people putting up all the pictures and writing all the bio stuff. And in my opinion, there is a lot of truth in that. And if you disagree with these people, there is a backlash. Brocks87 (talk) 22:28, April 8, 2014 (UTC) Can you please revert it back to the previous image? Thank you Brocks87 (talk) 22:40, April 8, 2014 (UTC) Hey Gearslover01, I'm sorry that you and Brocks87 are having a small disagreement over these two images of Booker DeWitt. I'd prefer to stay out of it, but he asked for my input, so here it is. Let me say that I don't think that you've been "choosing" which images should be allowed, you've just been uploading a series of nicely framed, well-lit, high resolution images that just happen to be the best ones for the Comstock and Lutece Twins pages and that's what this Wiki should strive for. That being said, I myself do prefer the previous image, though for different reasons than Brocks87 has given. If you'll pardon the pun, Booker is more well framed in the image on the right. There is little wasted space between the top of his head and the top of the border, the previous image is more well-lit (the left one's face and neck somehow look more shadowy), it shows more of Booker's body (while his left hand, right forearm, and lower torso are cut off in the left one), has more vibrant colors, etc. I do like the background on the left one a little better, but overall it doesn't do much for me. So, for purely artistic reasons, I prefer the previous image. However, if you could retake the image to more closely match the pose and framing of the one on the right, I don't see why we couldn't use it instead. Thanks for your time. Unownshipper (talk) 23:10, April 8, 2014 (UTC) I posted on Brocks87's talk page. I'll put the original image back on Booker's article. --Willbachbakal (talk) 05:18, April 9, 2014 (UTC) Here's hoping at some point you'll grow out of your manchild phase and stop thinking your Booker Dewitt and move on with your life. Maybe in 3-4 years?(being nice) Brocks87 (talk) 05:52, April 9, 2014 (UTC) - Actually, looking at the two pictures, I would say that he looks more Native American in the left picture. Left picture - dark blackish brown hair and slightly dark skin. Right picture - reddish brown hair and pink skin. :Seiously people! I'm not trying to be overly PC, but you shouldn't be saying one "looks" more Native American. Yes, there are common features traditionally associated with different ethnic groups, but unless you're an expert in racial phenotypes you're basing your assessment entirely on stereotypes. :Booker is at least part Native American. We don't know by how much or what other groups compose his heritage, so PLEASE stop arguing that we should add a picture that makes him "look" one way or another. :Unownshipper (talk) 21:30, April 9, 2014 (UTC) Thanks for notifying me! I reverted the image to your version, and protected the page to prevent further edit wars. --Willbachbakal (talk) 22:23, May 5, 2014 (UTC)